Oculus Explains Why It Doesn’t Think the Time is Right for ‘Rift 2’ or ‘Rift Pro’

Comments

I think he was saying that Oculus are the ones who would be putting their money on the line if they blew the wad on a high-end headset like HTC did with Vive Pro. In other words, he's agreeing that making a Rift 2 would be a financial risk.

I read it different, but I guess Mr. Mike can clarify!

I would agree that there is more to lose by going for a Rift 2 now, based on what the market as shown over the last 3 years. But I read his comment as Oculus risking a lose by "not focusing" on a Rift 2.

@zenbane@Nalex66 is correct. I was conceding that it is them who are risking the money and so if they dont want to make one then that is fair enough imo...... BUT I was saying their excuses in that specific interview was poor. If they dont want to make one because there is no profit in it, that is fine.

but not making one because an improved rift would break backwards compatibility and that there is no body tracking, or because some people disagree about what it means to improve a HMD is a nonsense reason imo because it is just not true - or doesnt need to be true at least.

Try that again. He didn't say "you can play normally" he said "let you play billiard normally." Do you not know what billiard is? He also said, "Not backhanders tho." Do you know what it means to be a backhander in billiards? I'm guessing you don't know what it means to play billiards; else you would not have thought that he contradicted himself.

so i guess the problem is i was talking about sportsbar VR a pool game. bar billiards in the UK at least AFAIK the cue is held in the same way.... and no, not heard of the term backhander...... well i have.... but not in this context. A backhander to me is something i may give to a bouncer to let me jump the queue in a club, or to get a dodgy building past planning permission.

Is that like a reach-around? I don't think I've wanted to get into a club enough to do that...

but not making one because an improved rift would break backwards compatibility and that there is no body tracking, or because some people disagree about what it means to improve a HMD is a nonsense reason imo because it is just not true - or doesnt need to be true at least.

I disagree here. I believe that the term "Gen 2" has been tossed around far too loosely. Just because black levels are improved, SDE is decreased, FOV is increased, etc... doesn't make it a Gen 2. Those are nominal upgrades to only one aspect of VR: the visual component of the HMD. A true Gen 2 brings so much more to the table (VR Gloves, Body Tracking, Eye Tracking).

So what Facebook is talking about is a true Gen 2, whereas you think it is nonsense because what you believe to be a Gen 2 isn't really Gen 2. The Vive Pro, Pimax 5K/8K, and HP Reverb are NOT Gen 2. They are all 1.x

1st of May is release? Ah - hadn't seen a release date so that's good to know - now I can stop checking Amazon n times a day (had another look before coming here...) to see what it will cost and what's with it or available for it (i.e. extra 'phones?).

I won't be buying direct from Oculus this time - Amazon has a better return service if I don't like it.

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

Not sure about release but I would imagine you’ll be able to order from 1st.

I am interested in the index though, I would imagine with the unveiling and orders for the index starting then, Oculus would be insane not to start the ordering process on the 30th for Rift S and try to catch the people wavering.

If Oculus doesn’t feel that their next-gen features are ready for prime time, that’s fine; they’re the only ones in a position to judge that. I agree that they need to maintain full backwards and forward compatibility, and keep the price in a reasonable range. An $800 headset at this point is going to have a hard time gaining traction. I don’t object to a minor refresh to update the specs a little in the meantime, and I was prepared to buy it on release based on my satisfaction with their previous products.

My disappointment stems from the decision to abandon features that were considered important when they released CV1. They put a stake in the ground and declared that it must be usable by everyone comfortably. Now, they’re saying that if your IPD is more than a few millimetres outside of the average, this might not be the headset for you. The head strap might be more comfortable, and it might accommodate glasses better, but that means nothing to me if I can’t get the lenses in the right place in front of my eyes. A single screen and fixed lenses are trade-offs I can accept in a $200 3dof device that I use to watch media, but I think it’s a lousy choice for their flagship PCVR headset, especially when it leaves behind a part of their user base who are already invested in their ecosystem.

I totally agree, for me all they had to do was leave the original head strap and built in headphones and just increase the resolution slightly, swap out the optics for Oculus GO lenses and increase the FOV to 135°. Then we would of all been happy with a moderate upgrade to keep us going until Rift CV2 arrives with 8k and eye tracking (kidding).

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

Look on the bright side give oculus 2 years and today’s expensive headsets will be on your head For half the price 😀

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.

I didn't say a less hassle free headset would bring in more headset sales, but that might help and could be one of the reason why Oculus got shut of the sensors. I said a cheaper headset might bring in more sales and that is what Oculus is trying to do.

The CV1 is a 3 yrs old headset and I paid £599 when it hit the shelves not £399.

Obviously Oculus will have to look at the PC -VR headset market again if their headsets are cheap and still not selling, but that's the same for all bushiness trying to make a profit not just Oculus.

People should consider themselves lucky that Oculus is the only ones who are making decent VR games instead of bashing them. After all what the point of having an expensive headset without having good VR games? Are you going to rely on Valve making these games because it will be a long wait if people are expecting Valve to do what Oculus is doing when it comes to VR games. I can't think of a game Valve has even made for their VR headsets yet.

Look on the bright side give oculus 2 years and today’s expensive headsets will be on your head For half the price

That works, it will just be like buying a Geforce 2080Ti in 2 years times, or maybe not with Nvida's crazy pricing. I think a most people wait for prices to drop. I know I do with Nvidia graphics cards and even more so now because of their pricing.

Surely they should of catered to the existing Rift users as well as we're marketing their HMD too. And we live in a world now where people upgrade their cars, phones, pc's all the time, and many of us want to upgrade our Rift experience and kinda have zero options. We either wait or go Valve Index etc. I'm getting Valve Index just because of the increased FOV but if Rift S had matched that FOV then I would have happily of stayed.

The surveys done on these forums already show that a lot of people are considering moving to other HMD's such as the Valve Index, regardless of price.

Also one more thing I keep hearing people say is that it was "Oculus choice as to weather or not to bring out a more expensive headset"...I don't agree with that statement, that the headset had to be more "expensive", why couldn't it be £400 or £450, why does everyone assume an upgrade is £800+

I still think they could have left the head-strap and headphones alone and just increased the resolution slightly and increase the FOV to 135° and kept the price around £400. This would have kept us happy.

Don't get me wrong, I love my CV1, and my GO, and I will 100% buy CV2 and Quest etc etc from Oculus, Oculus is a great company and my CV1 will always hold a special place in my heart, in fact I'm going to keep my CV1 forever, I'm never going to sell it, when I die I'm going to be buried whilst wearing my CV1 and my gravestone will say, "Lived a full life - IN VR - 1983 - 2083".

EDIT: After reading the full Article of what Oculus said too, he kept saying they didn't want to introduce a new feature that would break the eco-system...but why not increase the FOV? How would that of broke the eco-system?

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.

I didn't say a less hassle free headset would bring in more headset sales, but that might help and could be one of the reason why Oculus got shut of the sensors. I said a cheaper headset might bring in more sales and that is what Oculus is trying to do.

The CV1 is a 3 yrs old headset and I paid £599 when it hit the shelves not £399.

Obviously Oculus will have to look at the PC -VR headset market again if their headsets are cheap and still not selling, but that's the same for all bushiness trying to make a profit not just Oculus.

People should consider themselves lucky that Oculus is the only ones who are making decent VR games instead of bashing them. After all what the point of having an expensive headset without having good VR games? Are you going to rely on Valve making these games because it will be a long wait if people are expecting Valve to do what Oculus is doing when it comes to VR games. I can't think of a game Valve has even made for their VR headsets yet.

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.

@SkScotchegg - I much prefer the halo design for comfort because without VR Cover my CV1 is really uncomfortable. I know it's the same for a lot of people with the current CV1 and that's why they have purchased VR Cover.

We don't know yet if they are going to include some headphones for Rift -S, but they will be better then the CV1 design which had problems with the Right side speaker going out due to the ribbon cable. So CV1 was not the best design if you ask me.

The Lcd panel will look just as good as Oculus Quest because it reduces screen door better and uses 3 pixels instead of 2 pixels.

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.

Oculus are catering for a large amount of people who are using a Geforce 1060 1070 & 1080. You just have to look at the steam stats to see that there's not a lot of people using a Geforce 2080Ti due to it's price.

You talk about a higher end VR headset, but do you realise higher resolution displays would need something like a Geforce 2080Ti to get a good experience in game like SkyRim etc? Oculus Quest can use higher resolution displays because you won't be getting games like SkyRim in Oculus Quest.

We will soon see if it's a good idea to make a cheaper headset or a more expensive one. We need another year to see how many headsets the Rift -S has sold compared to the Valve index, which I suspect is going to cost more. It's only then that Oculus will decide if it's time to bring out a headset that cost the same as a Valve index.

Oculus have nothing to lose by playing the cheaper & more expensive headset game. They could just bring a Rift 2 forward if Valve index has good sales and costs more. I don't blame Oculus for seeing if a cheaper headset sells well. More expensive headsets have failed to bring in large numbers of people to VR, so it seems like it's the best thing to try right now.

Give it a year of sales and we will see what come out on top. So far expensive headsets have failed to catch on. But we will see if a better tech expensive headset will catch on this time around, or if it's best to keep them cheap like Oculus is trying to do.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

My worry is that that this Rift S will sell just about the same (minus the those that move on to headsets with better visuals for resolution and FOV), while I expect the Quest to definitely sell in larger numbers. Than FB will just announce to all that PCVR is dead, as nobody actually cares for high res applications. Then at least for all the FB sponsored games, all we will get is low quality visual and immersion, as that is all the mobile headset will be able to support for the foreseeable future.

It isn't the simpler set up that's going to appeal but the fact that you only need 1 USB port. Needing 3+ USB ports for the current Rift prevents it being used on most laptops.

"This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.

Oculus are catering for a large amount of people who are using a Geforce 1060 1070 & 1080. You just have to look at the steam stats to see that there's not a lot of people using a Geforce 2080Ti due to it's price.

You talk about a higher end VR headset, but do you realise higher resolution displays would need something like a Geforce 2080Ti to get a good experience in game like SkyRim etc? Oculus Quest can use higher resolution displays because you won't be getting games like SkyRim in Oculus Quest.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

You just effectively countered your main argument. The masses may not know about sensors, and they don't want to know about them. They just want to put on a headset and have everything start working, like magic. The fact that the masses don't want to mess with or know about external sensors proves that a PCVR headset with inside-out tracking is more alluring, to the masses, than a VR Kit that requires external sensors.

For those who have been on the forum for the past 3 years or longer, we've seen all the criticisms from "the masses" with every article plaguing the Internet proclaiming that VR was a fad that is dead and dying. You are saying that you don't "buy in to the idea" ... but the idea is literally a part of history that many witnessed first-hand.

But lets say you are right, then what do you believe has stopped PCVR sales from go to the 10's of millions, or 100's of millions? You are playing devil's advocate to other peoples posts, but you aren't exactly offering any insight in to what you believe the problem is, nor any potential resolution.

Yes, you said a cheaper headset could bring in more sales. CV1 + touch kit has been selling for $399 since 2017, dropping to 349 during holiday sales, then staying there since xmas 2018. I don't think it matters from a consumer perspective what it was going for at launch.

I can't speak for others, but I am not trying to bash them, just disappointed with the direction they are taking PCVR, by trying to keep it tied close to the low end performance target of the Quest.

Oculus are catering for a large amount of people who are using a Geforce 1060 1070 & 1080. You just have to look at the steam stats to see that there's not a lot of people using a Geforce 2080Ti due to it's price.

You talk about a higher end VR headset, but do you realise higher resolution displays would need something like a Geforce 2080Ti to get a good experience in game like SkyRim etc? Oculus Quest can use higher resolution displays because you won't be getting games like SkyRim in Oculus Quest.

What I always loved about PC gaming was the scaling from lower to higher end experiences. I could buy a game and enjoy at a lower fidelity, then when I get to upgrade my HW be able to run it at higher res and or more eye candy. In my case, I have been holding off getting a 2080Ti since there is nothing requiring me to get one. I would get just a marginal increase or none for the games I am playing currently on desktop as I prefer to play ultrawide than 4K at the moment, and for VR I have been holding off to see what happens. Well, if I would end up with an Rift S there would be zero need for it.

I am not sure I buy into the idea that simply a less hassle free setup without the sensors will dramatically increase PCVR sales of a rift, which happens to be more expensive (just marginally though) than the one it replaces. I would challenge that the masses they are trying to bring in even knows about sensors and tracking.

You just effectively countered your main argument. The masses may not know about sensors, and they don't want to know about them. They just want to put on a headset and have everything start working, like magic. The fact that the masses don't want to mess with or know about external sensors proves that a PCVR headset with inside-out tracking is more alluring, to the masses, than a VR Kit that requires external sensors.

For those who have been on the forum for the past 3 years or longer, we've seen all the criticisms from "the masses" with every article plaguing the Internet proclaiming that VR was a fad that is dead and dying. You are saying that you don't "buy in to the idea" ... but the idea is literally a part of history that many witnessed first-hand.

But lets say you are right, then what do you believe has stopped PCVR sales from go to the 10's of millions, or 100's of millions? You are playing devil's advocate to other peoples posts, but you aren't exactly offering any insight in to what you believe the problem is, nor any potential resolution.

You are correct that the general public does ability or interest into tinkering with technology is close to zero. What they want is a VR appliance, just like the fridge or their car. My disappointment is that supposedly FB Oculus IS the largest player in pushing VR, and all they seem to be doing is coming up with excuses why they are not wanting to push PCVR forward. I guess we can go back and forth till 2022 on what constitutes "forward" though

But lets say you are right, then what do you believe has stopped PCVR sales from go to the 10's of millions, or 100's of millions? You are playing devil's advocate to other peoples posts, but you aren't exactly offering any insight in to what you believe the problem is, nor any potential resolution.

My though is that simply the game experience is not at a level of immersion where the average gamer would actually go out and feel they must buy one themselves after they try in at their friends. They say it's cool, but it does not blow them away so much that they would rather spend their money on this than something else. So my bet would be to keep pushing the platforms forward until we reach a much higher immersion quality for VR, while in the meantime take all the money from people who are willing to give them money already.

If only VR has been developing at the rate of PC hardware changes 10-20 years ago... One can only dream.

This thread is turning into what I was posting about earlier. Some people just don't get it at all. "All they have to do....." yes, I'm sure you are a much better VR headset designer and sales advisor than those at Oculus!

Not.

They have told you why they aren't doing that - but no, they should do exactly what you want - not what they feel is best (and will give them a return on their substantial investment) and what is best the market that they want to sell to. You guys know all about what everyone else wants and why they don't want this.

This thread is turning into what I was posting about earlier. Some people just don't get it at all. "All they have to do....." yes, I'm sure you are a much better VR headset designer and sales advisor than those at Oculus!

Not.

They have told you why they aren't doing that - but no, they should do exactly what you want - not what they feel is best (and will give them a return on their substantial investment) and what is best the market that they want to sell to. You guys know all about what everyone else wants and why they don't want this.

Fuck me, I don't think I've ever seen so much bollox.

All they have to do is give me and @vannagirl the top jobs. In fact, give her a higher position than me, I won't have any problems being under her.

"This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

You are correct that the general public does ability or interest into tinkering with technology is close to zero. What they want is a VR appliance, just like the fridge or their car. My disappointment is that supposedly FB Oculus IS the largest player in pushing VR, and all they seem to be doing is coming up with excuses why they are not wanting to push PCVR forward.

All I see is people complaining as if they understand what it even means to "push PCVR forward."

A business can't push anything forward without a proper ROI. Those unhappy with the lack of Rift 2 seem to think that Facebook is literally obligated to sacrificing ROI in favor of continuing to appease the few who demand more hardware. It is the epitome of "misplaced entitlement."

HTC pushed for more hardware, and the result was over 27 months of financial loss and selling IP to Google. Yet not matter how many times this fact is pointed out, someone still thinks it's a good idea that Facebook follow the same path to financial ruin.

Hardware is only one part of the the VR Ecosystem. Pushing PCVR forward involves developing innovative Software, which Oculus continues to do to this day, and creating a self-sustaining business model, which Oculus is doing with Rift-S and Quest.

I'm curious, do work for a living and support yourself? Do you expect your employer to pay you for the work you do? More importantly, do you try to have money left over after you've paid all your necessary bills? Because you just said that it is "coming up with excuses" for someone to focus on yielding a positive return on investment. lol

I don't believe for one second that Facebook and Oculus are failing to push PCVR forward. Quite the opposite, they continue to drive PCVR forward in all key areas. They are simply not giving in to the pressure of the few online voices that have no idea what building a self-sustaining business model entails. Especially considering that most of those voices don't even know what the phrase "push PCVR forward" even means.

My though is that simply the game experience is not at a level of immersion where the average gamer would actually go out and feel they must buy one themselves after they try in at their friends. They say it's cool, but it does not blow them away so much that they would rather spend their money on this than something else.

That's a decent guess, but do you have any evidence that this is a noteworthy piece of feedback given mass consumers?

Because it does just seem like a guess, where you are blaming Software for the sake of blaming software. From my experience, after having given plenty of Rift demo's myself as well as talking to other gaming enthusiasts at events like PAX, people love the Software they experience in VR, but they do not want to invest the extra $$$ for a PC as well as dedicate a portion of their homes to VR (3-4 sensor setups).

Plenty of VR naysayers have talked about that on Facebook, on this forum, and on reddit. There is far more evidence of this being a true barrier for mass PCVR adoption as opposed to the guess you just made.

Thing is WMR went for the low end and slashed prices yet still trails HTC and Oculus. Price is not the magic formula on its own.

What you need to understand is Valve are drawing a line in the sand here. They don’t see price as the elephant in the room. Image quality is the elephant in the room and Index is the result. After 3 years of of VR sales were still at ground zero with regards to mass adoption and Valve sees the opportunity to rest the clock.

Index attempts to tick all the boxes where first gen HMDs failed. Throwing another WMR headset into the mix isn’t going to cut it even if you dress it up with 5 cameras and an Oculus badge.

Valve are removing the competitions USPs, the low price will come later.

While HMD sales languish in the 1% of Steam users, price counts for nothing. WMR is proof of that. Go is proof of that as is GearVR and cardboard VR.

This is not a fight between Valve and Oculus. This is a fight between VR HMDs and Monitors. So far Monitors win hands down with 4k and image quality and will continue winning as long as manufacturers put out sub par HMDs. Valve are bringing users monitor quality VR and a reason to switch while keeping these users in the Steam Eco system.

Mass VR adoption may never come to pass and Valve won’t care either way as long as PCVR is dominated by SteamVR as it is today supporting all headsets taking the lions share of software sales.

Oculus basically threw in the towel with the Lenovo Rift S. Even Cosmos might sell more HMDs than Rift S given its resolution and upgradability to 5G 855 snap dragon processor.